Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:22:02 +0100 | From | Dave P Martin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tracing: make ftrace_print_array_seq compute buf_len |
| |
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:17:48PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: > The only caller to this function was getting it wrong. I favoured
What caller?
Wrong in what way?
> pushing the calculation to as close to the need as possible rather than > fixing the one caller.
This seems reasonable, but...
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> > --- > include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 2 +- > kernel/trace/trace_output.c | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h > index c674ee8..e6b0262 100644 > --- a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h > @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ const char *ftrace_print_hex_seq(struct trace_seq *p, > const unsigned char *buf, int len); > > const char *ftrace_print_array_seq(struct trace_seq *p, > - const void *buf, int buf_len, > + const void *buf, int len,
How is the name "len" less confusing than "buf_len"?
I suggest matching the name to the equivalent argument of the __print_array macro -- i.e., "count".
Cheers ---Dave
[...]
| |